I'm not sure it's entirely done with the intent to price fix (although regardless of the reason price-fixing happens, the effect is obviously the same.)
Part of the problem is developers don't know the perfect price point for subscriptions, and can't effectively test it.
Launching with a higher sub price might cripple a game, because either the price might be too high on its own or the price might be above the customer expectations set by a decade of other MMORPGs. It's possible a higher sub price is where the sweet spot lies, but nobody is willing to risk their many-million-dollar investment to find out.
If a higher sub ends up being a bad direction, lowering the sub cost won't bring players back. A botched launch is a botched launch.
Launching with a lower sub price would certainly result in more willingness to subscribe, but will it be worth the loss in money per subscriber? Who knows? Again, a big risk in a situation of massive investment.
If a lower sub ends up being a bad direction, you couldn't increase the cost without massive customer backlash.
Launching with multiple price points is possible, but sort of works against what players like about subscription games (everyone pays the same, and gets the same.)
Then again, this is pretty much exactly what F2P games do and they do make more money and have variable revenue-per-player which is set precisely based on actual demand for the product.
So basically these games find themselves in the awkward situation of staying the course because to try anything else adds a huge risk to a very expensive investment.
It still sort of has the effects of price-fixing (except for the whole ignoring-inflation thing,) even if the intent isn't some nefarious conspiracy against players.
Full disclosure, I'm a designer who's worked closely with my games' product managers to set prices and game economies. Not on MMORPGs, but there's really not that much difference between genres in this regard.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Sephiroso I never said anything about 15 a month being to low or to high. i said it is pointless to fluctuate it because if it goes any lower it will have no effect. as i said, people who are willing to pay 7 a month will be willing to pay 15 a month. the only direction of fluctuating that will have an affect is up and it will have a strongly NEGATIVE affect on subscription based games if they were to start charging 20-25 dollars a month. it really isn't that hard to understand.
yes i truly think 9 dollars a month wouldn't attract more or retain more customers as opposed to 15 a month, its fucking 6 dollars a month. Seriously if i wanted to i could find 10x that by keeping an eye out for quarters on the ground. A mere difference of 6 dollars is not going to make someone keep paying for a game or pick it up in the first place.
Again you're being extremely obtuse. You say whats if there's no difference from going down, whats stopping them from going up...that should be obvious. I'm seriously n ot going to sit here and explain just why that would be bad. That's like expecting console games to just shoot up from 60 dollars to 100 dollars and not expect any backlash and vasts majority of players boycotting video games.
Also before you say the jump from 60 to 100 dollars is much more drastic a jump than 15 to 20-25, learn how percentages work.
Am I being obtuse or are you just taking personal experiences or opinion and utilizing it in an argument. I'm merely just trying to be objective as possible while expanding the possibilities that could be out there. You cannot truly say a $20 or $25 dollar sub fee would actually have a negative impact merely because it has never been tried. Given if a game acquired enough quality or perhaps a game didn't include a box price at all, maybe they could justify the higher sub fee. Who knows until someone tried. Yes, its all theorycraft but this is kind of what forums were about, sharing of ideas and opinions.
I mean no one has yet even was able to truly justify why the price is even set at $15/mo aside from the fact that it was just the standard. Standards generally do change and I wouldn't mind speculating when that will occur. There has been obvious major shifts in payment models with clearly divided sides. Again, how else are P2P MMO's able to compete when their subs are on a decline? A company can only do the same thing for so long until an adjustment HAS to be made. What do you think they should do if they were to try and retain the P2P model in some shape or form?
Its much easier to scoff at the ideas that haven't been tried because that was the norm the whole time but I don't think its as unreasonable as you are making it out to be for sub fees to go elsewhere. You can spout % all you want, but a $15 barrier is still higher than a $12 or $9. Just because you don't care for the prices doesn't mean there isn't someone out there that actually does care. That's generally how social sciences work, it takes in the account the group, not necessarily one's personal experience and opinion to justify large scale phenomenons.
It doesn't matter how 15 a month came to be, what matters is it is what it is. The fact that it is what it is, means if you want people to even think of playing your game with any decent number of players, you can't go above 15 a month. With as many mmo's out there, you have to stay competitive price point wise. Which means 15 a month or lower. I already stated why going lower is pointless.
The poster above me with the bullet points explained everything i just did in nicer way so maybe its easier for you to understand if you read that post.
I'm not sure it's entirely done with the intent to price fix (although regardless of the reason price-fixing happens, the effect is obviously the same.)
Part of the problem is developers don't know the perfect price point for subscriptions, and can't effectively test it.
Launching with a higher sub price might cripple a game, because either the price might be too high on its own or the price might be above the customer expectations set by a decade of other MMORPGs. It's possible a higher sub price is where the sweet spot lies, but nobody is willing to risk their many-million-dollar investment to find out.
If a higher sub ends up being a bad direction, lowering the sub cost won't bring players back. A botched launch is a botched launch.
Launching with a lower sub price would certainly result in more willingness to subscribe, but will it be worth the loss in money per subscriber? Who knows? Again, a big risk in a situation of massive investment.
If a lower sub ends up being a bad direction, you couldn't increase the cost without massive customer backlash.
Launching with multiple price points is possible, but sort of works against what players like about subscription games (everyone pays the same, and gets the same.)
Then again, this is pretty much exactly what F2P games do and they do make more money and have variable revenue-per-player which is set precisely based on actual demand for the product.
So basically these games find themselves in the awkward situation of staying the course because to try anything else adds a huge risk to a very expensive investment.
It still sort of has the effects of price-fixing (except for the whole ignoring-inflation thing,) even if the intent isn't some nefarious conspiracy against players.
Full disclosure, I'm a designer who's worked closely with my games' product managers to set prices and game economies. Not on MMORPGs, but there's really not that much difference between genres in this regard.
Lowering the sub price is the best choice for everyone. But companies must stop wasting bagillions of dollars on development in general (dev, pub, marketing, etc). They can make the same quality game we recieve now with a lower budget. They dont do it becuase once you get involved in big numbers you dont want to go back even if its for your own good. Do you remember the news where someone said (i think it was activision) that they spent more money on marketing and campaign for the war between CoD vs BF than both games actually cost to make......MMOs are more expensive than those games so they have to play smarter with their costs and investments.
Originally posted by Kyleran I look at it differently, why can't I pay a higher sub fee and get better quality games, features, and service?
Supply and demand?
Don't get me wrong, i am not opposed to you getting what you want, as long as that does not affect me negatively.
But think about it from a dev point of view.
First, quality is subjective. What you like and think is high quality may be disliked by some other. So are there enough people who agree with you. And how much are this group of people willing to pay?
Business is about ROI. If they can make a higher return on i, investment on some other group, why should they cater to you?
The only reason why they cater to me is because my preference is probably similar to many whales. I am under no illusion that devs are trying to make me happy. If not, i will quit f2P MMOs, and find some other entertainment.
I get what you are saying, but with few exceptions developers really haven't tried to offer premium, sub based services. Objects in the cash shop, sure, sort of how you can buy snacks at the movie theater at high prices. But near my house we have theaters that charge 2 extra bucks to see the movie while sitting in fully powered leather recliners and waitresses who will sell you a quality dinner on top of it.
I'm sure you been to 3D movies, or even D-shock where your seat vibrates and moves, all for a premium upcharge to the basic movie. Yet for MMOs we seen no such creativity. You say supply and demand, I say they haven't even tried to be truly creative, especially in the area of services.
Is it because no such services are possible? No, I provided one good example in my previous post. Is it because developers lack creativity? Probably not. More likely the people who control the purse strings lack the stones to try any thing innovative, as evidenced by game design the past 8 or 9 years now. Or, is it the players themselves, perhaps that's really where the problem lies....
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm not sure it's entirely done with the intent to price fix (although regardless of the reason price-fixing happens, the effect is obviously the same.)
Part of the problem is developers don't know the perfect price point for subscriptions, and can't effectively test it.
Launching with a higher sub price might cripple a game, because either the price might be too high on its own or the price might be above the customer expectations set by a decade of other MMORPGs. It's possible a higher sub price is where the sweet spot lies, but nobody is willing to risk their many-million-dollar investment to find out.
If a higher sub ends up being a bad direction, lowering the sub cost won't bring players back. A botched launch is a botched launch.
Launching with a lower sub price would certainly result in more willingness to subscribe, but will it be worth the loss in money per subscriber? Who knows? Again, a big risk in a situation of massive investment.
If a lower sub ends up being a bad direction, you couldn't increase the cost without massive customer backlash.
Launching with multiple price points is possible, but sort of works against what players like about subscription games (everyone pays the same, and gets the same.)
Then again, this is pretty much exactly what F2P games do and they do make more money and have variable revenue-per-player which is set precisely based on actual demand for the product.
So basically these games find themselves in the awkward situation of staying the course because to try anything else adds a huge risk to a very expensive investment.
It still sort of has the effects of price-fixing (except for the whole ignoring-inflation thing,) even if the intent isn't some nefarious conspiracy against players.
Full disclosure, I'm a designer who's worked closely with my games' product managers to set prices and game economies. Not on MMORPGs, but there's really not that much difference between genres in this regard.
Lowering the sub price is the best choice for everyone. But companies must stop wasting bagillions of dollars on development in general (dev, pub, marketing, etc). They can make the same quality game we recieve now with a lower budget. They dont do it becuase once you get involved in big numbers you dont want to go back even if its for your own good. Do you remember the news where someone said (i think it was activision) that they spent more money on marketing and campaign for the war between CoD vs BF than both games actually cost to make......MMOs are more expensive than those games so they have to play smarter with their costs and investments.
Lowering the sub costs is not the best choice for everyone. Developers who have more money, only have more options to do with more content and expansions. And again, the difference between 15 dollars and even 7 dollars, lowering it by half is literally nothing. 7 dollars a month is nothing. 7 dollars a month for a year equates to like a day and a half work at minimum wage. Thats a day and a half of your life for an entire year. (3 days for 15 dollars) At such a low cost, there is NO POINT in lowering the cost any further.
Originally posted by rojo6934 Lowering the sub price is the best choice for everyone. But companies must stop wasting bagillions of dollars on development in general (dev, pub, marketing, etc). They can make the same quality game we recieve now with a lower budget. They dont do it becuase once you get involved in big numbers you dont want to go back even if its for your own good. Do you remember the news where someone said (i think it was activision) that they spent more money on marketing and campaign for the war between CoD vs BF than both games actually cost to make......MMOs are more expensive than those games so they have to play smarter with their costs and investments.
I think there becomes a line that has to be drawn by the company though when something stops working or isn't as effective as before. What if they can't utilize the big numbers to draw in the intended effect? I mean could this be the downfall of at least pure P2P models or can a few dollars (in price difference) per month at least salvage some of it?
Regarding Axehilt's post, I firmly believe its price-fixing despite it being at a fixed price. I guess my own definition of price fixing has to usually involve a product that is considered a NECESSITY. Price fixing video game sub fees just seems like far less of a scandal lol. Joking aside, I still firmly believe that a lower price will bring in more people than a higher price, no matter the margins. I think the thing no one really knows is to what degree. I also have a hard time envisioning many options for P2P games as stated in your post in why maybe these companies have to "stay the course".
Regarding higher or lower prices, I just used "larger" differences to try and exaggerate an example but I don't see why companies haven't even tried the gradual increases of one dollar especially if a company perceives its own product as "higher quality" than the average game, like why not try $16. I can't see that entirely crippling a game's launch if the original intention or assumed intention was $15.
Prices generally fluctuate much more gradually but usually when prices are mentioned its with something a little more concrete like tangible goods, but I wonder how far we can push the theory into services like MMO subscriptions.
Originally posted by Sephiroso Lowering the sub costs is not the best choice for everyone. Developers who have more money, only have more options to do with more content and expansions. And again, the difference between 15 dollars and even 7 dollars, lowering it by half is literally nothing. 7 dollars a month is nothing. 7 dollars a month for a year equates to like a day and a half work at minimum wage. Thats a day and a half of your life for an entire year. (3 days for 15 dollars) At such a low cost, there is NO POINT in lowering the cost any further.
But there is a point in lowering the price and that's in light of competition with other companies reaching for the same market(s). If small differences in price doesn't matter, companies and stores wouldn't be trying to give away 10% discounts by participating in various card programs etc. or lowering the price of their paper towels by $0.50. If these subtle differences didn't matter commercially, then it merely wouldn't happen, but it does in this day and age and I don't see how this effect would be any different with something like video games aside from the subjective "quality" aspect which also exists in tangible things as well (name brand products vs generic products).
Lowering the sub price is the best choice for everyone. But companies must stop wasting bagillions of dollars on development in general (dev, pub, marketing, etc). They can make the same quality game we recieve now with a lower budget. They dont do it becuase once you get involved in big numbers you dont want to go back even if its for your own good. Do you remember the news where someone said (i think it was activision) that they spent more money on marketing and campaign for the war between CoD vs BF than both games actually cost to make......MMOs are more expensive than those games so they have to play smarter with their costs and investments.
Lowering the sub costs is not the best choice for everyone. Developers who have more money, only have more options to do with more content and expansions. And again, the difference between 15 dollars and even 7 dollars, lowering it by half is literally nothing. 7 dollars a month is nothing. 7 dollars a month for a year equates to like a day and a half work at minimum wage. Thats a day and a half of your life for an entire year. (3 days for 15 dollars) At such a low cost, there is NO POINT in lowering the cost any further.
I suspect that the problem is a lack of data. There's just no extensive data on subscriber numbers at varous sub price points. Nobody can tell if a 10% price drop will draw in 10% more players. And most people in this thread are not talking about 10%, they are in 30% and 50% territory.
I'm also convinced that $15 is not the deciding factor in subbing or not subbing. If you truly can't afford $15 a month for unlimited access to a certain entertainment product, then you are in all likelihood not part of the target market, so your protest is irrelevant.
I'd say the most important factor in the sub decision is whether you perceive the price to be worth it. What will it be ? A sub to MMO X or an extra pizza/taco or two ? Judging by the outpourings of venom on these forums since the P2P trifecta (FFXIV, Wildstar, ESO), a great many people really don't want to give up that extra pizza every month
Lowering the sub price is the best choice for everyone. But companies must stop wasting bagillions of dollars on development in general (dev, pub, marketing, etc). They can make the same quality game we recieve now with a lower budget. They dont do it becuase once you get involved in big numbers you dont want to go back even if its for your own good. Do you remember the news where someone said (i think it was activision) that they spent more money on marketing and campaign for the war between CoD vs BF than both games actually cost to make......MMOs are more expensive than those games so they have to play it smarter.
Well there's no doubt there's inefficiency in the system. There's really no example of a product or company made with 100% efficiency, so some money is wasted. No doubt.
But there's no magical way to simply *POOF* make game-making more efficient.
Most pressure from gamers' feedback is actually to make things less efficient by trying new ideas. They suggest features which are explicitly less efficient to produce or less efficient at causing players to have fun.
The problem is that many of these ideas also have some of the highest fun potential because they're different. But because they're different, R&D is needed. Iteration is needed. Iteration means time. Time means money, which means less efficient development.
The most efficient game designs are boring as hell. They're safe, known quantities which don't bring anything new to the table to excite players. But you can produce them rapidly and efficiently.
So while we want to be as efficient as possible in iterating on new game features, inevitably it costs more money than churning out a known quantity, which means there's going to be some inefficiency.
As for lowering the price? There isn't really a "best for everyone" price. The nature of economics says that suppliers always want to optimize for revenue and consumers always want the lowest price possible, so the price "sweet spot" for both groups doesn't ever intersect. Furthermore, a lower price may actually be bad for customers in the long run if it means their favorite companies offer prices which generate razor-thing profit margins, and they end up going out of business at the first sign of an economic downturn (20 studios we lost in 2012, and another list that goes back a bit further.) As a gamer it's in my own best interest to spend enough on Game A that I enjoy from a company so that they generate enough profit to create Game B (which I'm also likely to enjoy.) (Again, I'm a developer myself so take that however you want, but it's honestly the way I look at it; and the way I look at other entertainment products as well.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm also convinced that $15 is not the deciding factor in subbing or not subbing. If you truly can't afford $15 a month for unlimited access to a certain entertainment product, then you are in all likelihood not part of the target market, so your protest is irrelevant.
Well we can't say that without data either. We don't know how many new payers are added or lost as you decrease or increase the subscription price.
It seems quite likely $15 isn't the precise local maxima, and that a price somewhat different than that would generate more total revenue. Or maybe EQ1 did their homework extensively when they set that $15 precedent, and the market still bears it out today. Again, we just don't have access to that data to make an informed guess either way.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So I been reading "Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy" by Thomas Sowell, recommended by a friend and it has got me thinking a lot about prices (yes I only read the first 3 chapters so far). It mentions how naturally prices for particular goods/services fluctuate based on supply and demand and impacts on the overall economy when various forms of price control are enforced.
With this in mind, I had to notice on how subscription monthly prices have practically been untouched, following the same exact model since UO. ($15/mo for 1 month sub, $14/mo for 3 month sub, $13/mo for 6 month sub). I wonder why haven't companies tried experimenting with this model? Could they possibly be blocking out a set of people that might be willing to pay $10/mo or $5/mo for 1 month sub, potentially making more money than using the much higher barrier of $15/mo?
When I try to pitch games to people I know (particularly those unfamiliar with MMO's) mention a sub fee of $15/mo, you can just tell where a person switches their mind/decision. It's an observable obstacle that I see among many people. I know people that have enjoyed MMO's previously and have played them for years but nowadays don't feel like paying for subs, refusing every sub MMO out there.
Can a reduced monthly fee change a person's mind and how many? How come experimenting with varying amounts of sub fees haven't been explored yet? Do you think companies are missing out on making more money with lower sub fees or do you think they can attract just as many people with even higher sub fees ($20/mo)? Thoughts/opinions?
Market studies are done to find the highest price you can charge before the majority of potential buyers are no longer interested. It's the same reason very few cash shop items don't go below $5, even when its clear the item is worth less than $5.
It's basically a barrier of mass monetary flow. The extra people that you would get charging $3 doesn't outpace the extra money from the people that are willing to spend $5.
For MMOs that price is between $13-15.
As to why nobody tries to raise the price? Market expectations. People are use to paying $15 and they'd rail against paying more. Ultimately this doesn't hurt MMO developers, because the maintenance cost of maintaining a MMO has actually went down the last decade due to things like virtualization, datacenter competition, better software automation, bandwidth availability, a surplus of qualified IT professionals, etc. Add into that stagnate wages over the past decade, and they're actually making more on your $15 now than they were 10 years ago.
An example of going against market expectations is what happened to Netflix when they rose their prices. It's generally a bad idea.
I think people that balk at $15 per month would likely balk at any monthly subscription, whatsoever. In other words, most people are conditioned to pay once for a game and then to "own" it... for all eternity. It's funny because some of those people probably wouldn't blink at paying a yearly subscription to a magazine they enjoy, and I'm sure the comparison has been made before.
It's mostly about barriers to entry... more so than anything else (from my perspective). Personally, $15 per month is a little steep for me, no matter how good the experience.
That said, the game I enjoy charges $10 per month with discounts for extended periods ($90 for 1 year, $160 for 2), and has since 2004. I will likely spend over one grand on this game in my lifetime.
I'm also not sure if the OP is suggesting that specific games adjust prices based on changing market conditions or not.... From my perspective this may not work well due to customer expectations and loyalty. At most, a game may be able to introduce new payment options as we've seen with WoW and others.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
So I been reading "Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy" by Thomas Sowell, recommended by a friend and it has got me thinking a lot about prices (yes I only read the first 3 chapters so far). It mentions how naturally prices for particular goods/services fluctuate based on supply and demand and impacts on the overall economy when various forms of price control are enforced.
With this in mind, I had to notice on how subscription monthly prices have practically been untouched, following the same exact model since UO. ($15/mo for 1 month sub, $14/mo for 3 month sub, $13/mo for 6 month sub). I wonder why haven't companies tried experimenting with this model? Could they possibly be blocking out a set of people that might be willing to pay $10/mo or $5/mo for 1 month sub, potentially making more money than using the much higher barrier of $15/mo?
When I try to pitch games to people I know (particularly those unfamiliar with MMO's) mention a sub fee of $15/mo, you can just tell where a person switches their mind/decision. It's an observable obstacle that I see among many people. I know people that have enjoyed MMO's previously and have played them for years but nowadays don't feel like paying for subs, refusing every sub MMO out there.
Can a reduced monthly fee change a person's mind and how many? How come experimenting with varying amounts of sub fees haven't been explored yet? Do you think companies are missing out on making more money with lower sub fees or do you think they can attract just as many people with even higher sub fees ($20/mo)? Thoughts/opinions?
I hope they go up to at least 20 dollars a month, keeps the majority of the rift raft out of the game. I only like sub games.
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
Originally posted by Phaserlight It's mostly about barriers to entry... more so than anything else (from my perspective). Personally, $15 per month is a little steep for me, no matter how good the experience.
That said, the game I enjoy charges $10 per month with discounts for extended periods ($90 for 1 year, $160 for 2), and has since 2004. I will likely spend over one grand on this game in my lifetime.
I find it funny how people can say 15 a month is a little steep when you pay just as much to see a movie in theaters just once. For how much entertainment value you get out of mmos typically(lasting months or even longer if you find 'the one') 15 a month is a steal in my eyes.
Also that game wouldn't happen to be Dark Ages or Nexus TK would it? Kru/Nexon games.
So I been reading "Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy" by Thomas Sowell, recommended by a friend and it has got me thinking a lot about prices (yes I only read the first 3 chapters so far). It mentions how naturally prices for particular goods/services fluctuate based on supply and demand and impacts on the overall economy when various forms of price control are enforced.
With this in mind, I had to notice on how subscription monthly prices have practically been untouched, following the same exact model since UO. ($15/mo for 1 month sub, $14/mo for 3 month sub, $13/mo for 6 month sub). I wonder why haven't companies tried experimenting with this model? Could they possibly be blocking out a set of people that might be willing to pay $10/mo or $5/mo for 1 month sub, potentially making more money than using the much higher barrier of $15/mo?
When I try to pitch games to people I know (particularly those unfamiliar with MMO's) mention a sub fee of $15/mo, you can just tell where a person switches their mind/decision. It's an observable obstacle that I see among many people. I know people that have enjoyed MMO's previously and have played them for years but nowadays don't feel like paying for subs, refusing every sub MMO out there.
Can a reduced monthly fee change a person's mind and how many? How come experimenting with varying amounts of sub fees haven't been explored yet? Do you think companies are missing out on making more money with lower sub fees or do you think they can attract just as many people with even higher sub fees ($20/mo)? Thoughts/opinions?
I hope they go up to at least 20 dollars a month, keeps the majority of the rift raft out of the game. I only like sub games.
I hope any game you enjoy does go up to 20 dollars a month so you can cry about how they were forced to go free to play after a mass exodus happened over night.
So I been reading "Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy" by Thomas Sowell, recommended by a friend and it has got me thinking a lot about prices (yes I only read the first 3 chapters so far). It mentions how naturally prices for particular goods/services fluctuate based on supply and demand and impacts on the overall economy when various forms of price control are enforced.
With this in mind, I had to notice on how subscription monthly prices have practically been untouched, following the same exact model since UO. ($15/mo for 1 month sub, $14/mo for 3 month sub, $13/mo for 6 month sub). I wonder why haven't companies tried experimenting with this model? Could they possibly be blocking out a set of people that might be willing to pay $10/mo or $5/mo for 1 month sub, potentially making more money than using the much higher barrier of $15/mo?
When I try to pitch games to people I know (particularly those unfamiliar with MMO's) mention a sub fee of $15/mo, you can just tell where a person switches their mind/decision. It's an observable obstacle that I see among many people. I know people that have enjoyed MMO's previously and have played them for years but nowadays don't feel like paying for subs, refusing every sub MMO out there.
Can a reduced monthly fee change a person's mind and how many? How come experimenting with varying amounts of sub fees haven't been explored yet? Do you think companies are missing out on making more money with lower sub fees or do you think they can attract just as many people with even higher sub fees ($20/mo)? Thoughts/opinions?
I hope they go up to at least 20 dollars a month, keeps the majority of the rift raft out of the game. I only like sub games.
I hope any game you enjoy does go up to 20 dollars a month so you can cry about how they were forced to go free to play after a mass exodus happened over night.
I wouldn't play a free to play game so I would quit once they make the transition as I have in the past. /shrug
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
If you only want one character, FFXIV is cheaper than $15/month. Besides, if you can't afford $15 a month, you got bigger things to worry about than playing a game.
The western devs are behind the times. Still stealing from people with digital box fees. Wushu is 9$ a month, and no box fee. If your game is good people will sub. No need for a 50-60 upfront processing fee.
So I been reading "Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy" by Thomas Sowell, recommended by a friend and it has got me thinking a lot about prices (yes I only read the first 3 chapters so far). It mentions how naturally prices for particular goods/services fluctuate based on supply and demand and impacts on the overall economy when various forms of price control are enforced.
With this in mind, I had to notice on how subscription monthly prices have practically been untouched, following the same exact model since UO. ($15/mo for 1 month sub, $14/mo for 3 month sub, $13/mo for 6 month sub). I wonder why haven't companies tried experimenting with this model? Could they possibly be blocking out a set of people that might be willing to pay $10/mo or $5/mo for 1 month sub, potentially making more money than using the much higher barrier of $15/mo?
When I try to pitch games to people I know (particularly those unfamiliar with MMO's) mention a sub fee of $15/mo, you can just tell where a person switches their mind/decision. It's an observable obstacle that I see among many people. I know people that have enjoyed MMO's previously and have played them for years but nowadays don't feel like paying for subs, refusing every sub MMO out there.
Can a reduced monthly fee change a person's mind and how many? How come experimenting with varying amounts of sub fees haven't been explored yet? Do you think companies are missing out on making more money with lower sub fees or do you think they can attract just as many people with even higher sub fees ($20/mo)? Thoughts/opinions?
It has fluctuated. Tons if fact. All the way to "free". What we see now is a resurgence in the sub market. FFIVX, ESO, and WildStar are planning sub launches. The last major sub launch was SWTOR and it flopped.
I might point out to you, your selection of data is narrow. If you used a broader spectrum of data, you would see that while sub prices have stagnated, other entertainment prices have risen. In the 10+ years I have been plunking down $15 a month for game subs, a local movie ticket has gone from $7.50 to $12.50. This data shows that game subs have bucked the inflation trend.
No offence intended, but, you should finish the textbook before you attempt to dissect the market XD.
When I try to pitch games to people I know (particularly those unfamiliar with MMO's) mention a sub fee of $15/mo, you can just tell where a person switches their mind/decision.
Whole reason I was stuck with Runescape growing up, well that and my homes computer was fairly crappy, but my mom always thought and to this day still thinks someone would have to be high to pay $15 a month for a game they've already payed for.
Also my mom was a gamer mom so was not even the typical "Video games are stupid" mom.
When I try to pitch games to people I know (particularly those unfamiliar with MMO's) mention a sub fee of $15/mo, you can just tell where a person switches their mind/decision.
Whole reason I was stuck with Runescape growing up, well that and my homes computer was fairly crappy, but my mom always thought and to this day still thinks someone would have to be high to pay $15 a month for a game they've already payed for.
Also my mom was a gamer mom so was not even the typical "Video games are stupid" mom.
console gamers =/= mmorpg gamers. completely different species so i wouldn't expect a console gamer to understand the concept of playing a sub to an mmo. i mean its not like their console games that they bought constantly get updated with new content and have extreme server costs to maintain.
console gamers =/= mmorpg gamers. completely different species so i wouldn't expect a console gamer to understand the concept of playing a sub to an mmo. i mean its not like their console games that they bought constantly get updated with new content and have extreme server costs to maintain.
What does server cost and new content has to do with a sub. There are plenty games with those things don't charge a sub.
D3, anyone? B2P games and F2P games?
And what is a MMORPG gamer? I play console games, pc games, iOS games, and some MMORPG. Do i count? I certainly do not play MMORPG exclusive, nor i care about the label.
But i am curious about your definition. Lots of people play WOW, and also Splinter Cell, CoD, Halo on their consoles too. What are they? Hybrids?
console gamers =/= mmorpg gamers. completely different species so i wouldn't expect a console gamer to understand the concept of playing a sub to an mmo. i mean its not like their console games that they bought constantly get updated with new content and have extreme server costs to maintain.
What does server cost and new content has to do with a sub. There are plenty games with those things don't charge a sub.
D3, anyone? B2P games and F2P games?
And what is a MMORPG gamer? I play console games, pc games, iOS games, and some MMORPG. Do i count? I certainly do not play MMORPG exclusive, nor i care about the label.
But i am curious about your definition. Lots of people play WOW, and also Splinter Cell, CoD, Halo on their consoles too. What are they? Hybrids?
D3 makes money from RMAH sales and also its a b2p mmo. It's a lobby game. You really think D3 has anywhere near the server costs as WoW or Tera or Aion or Wushu or any actual open world persistent mmo?
Even GW2 makes its money from cash shop purchases.
There is no such game that is B2P that doesn't have a secondary continuous form of income outside of the box sales. That's just grounds for closure very quickly if they didn't.
What I said was console gamers are not the same as mmorpg gamers. I wouldn't expect them to understand why people pay subscriptions toward a game they already purchased because in their mind, they bought the game, its theirs, why do they ahve to keep paying money to play it? I then explained why such a thought process was flawed.
But yes, you have pretty much nailed it. People who generally play mmorpgs and console gamers can be thought of as hybrids, but i think an analogy of All MMORPG gamers are console gamers, but not all console gamers are MMORPG gamers. would make better sense than to say 'hybrids' because that typically is true for everyone. I know a great deal of people who only play console games, but never have and never will play an mmo(or tried but hated thus never will again). Yet how many mmorpg players do you know who will say the same about console games?
What I said was console gamers are not the same as mmorpg gamers. I wouldn't expect them to understand why people pay subscriptions toward a game they already purchased because in their mind, they bought the game, its theirs, why do they ahve to keep paying money to play it? I then explained why such a thought process was flawed.
Why is it flawed? Let's assume, for a moment, that indeed MMORPGs have higher server cost (which you claim, but i don't see any evidence that it is so, except your opinion. Show me a report of server costs between D3, Battlefield 3, and WOW, and i will believe you).
Why i should i pay for when the cost is higher? I pay for fun, for value. I don't pay for something just because it is expensive to make.
TOR has very high development cost. I am not going to pay more for that game just because it is expensive.
Now you may prefer to pay more because you want to compensate devs just because you feel sorry for them. But don't assume everyone needs to have the same preference.
It is no flaw to decide i don't want to pay for something no matter how much it costs. It is just a preference that .. that something is not worth it.
Comments
I'm not sure it's entirely done with the intent to price fix (although regardless of the reason price-fixing happens, the effect is obviously the same.)
Part of the problem is developers don't know the perfect price point for subscriptions, and can't effectively test it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It doesn't matter how 15 a month came to be, what matters is it is what it is. The fact that it is what it is, means if you want people to even think of playing your game with any decent number of players, you can't go above 15 a month. With as many mmo's out there, you have to stay competitive price point wise. Which means 15 a month or lower. I already stated why going lower is pointless.
The poster above me with the bullet points explained everything i just did in nicer way so maybe its easier for you to understand if you read that post.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Lowering the sub price is the best choice for everyone. But companies must stop wasting bagillions of dollars on development in general (dev, pub, marketing, etc). They can make the same quality game we recieve now with a lower budget. They dont do it becuase once you get involved in big numbers you dont want to go back even if its for your own good. Do you remember the news where someone said (i think it was activision) that they spent more money on marketing and campaign for the war between CoD vs BF than both games actually cost to make......MMOs are more expensive than those games so they have to play smarter with their costs and investments.
Supply and demand?
Don't get me wrong, i am not opposed to you getting what you want, as long as that does not affect me negatively.
But think about it from a dev point of view.
First, quality is subjective. What you like and think is high quality may be disliked by some other. So are there enough people who agree with you. And how much are this group of people willing to pay?
Business is about ROI. If they can make a higher return on i, investment on some other group, why should they cater to you?
The only reason why they cater to me is because my preference is probably similar to many whales. I am under no illusion that devs are trying to make me happy. If not, i will quit f2P MMOs, and find some other entertainment.
I get what you are saying, but with few exceptions developers really haven't tried to offer premium, sub based services. Objects in the cash shop, sure, sort of how you can buy snacks at the movie theater at high prices. But near my house we have theaters that charge 2 extra bucks to see the movie while sitting in fully powered leather recliners and waitresses who will sell you a quality dinner on top of it.I'm sure you been to 3D movies, or even D-shock where your seat vibrates and moves, all for a premium upcharge to the basic movie. Yet for MMOs we seen no such creativity. You say supply and demand, I say they haven't even tried to be truly creative, especially in the area of services.
Is it because no such services are possible? No, I provided one good example in my previous post. Is it because developers lack creativity? Probably not. More likely the people who control the purse strings lack the stones to try any thing innovative, as evidenced by game design the past 8 or 9 years now. Or, is it the players themselves, perhaps that's really where the problem lies....
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Lowering the sub costs is not the best choice for everyone. Developers who have more money, only have more options to do with more content and expansions. And again, the difference between 15 dollars and even 7 dollars, lowering it by half is literally nothing. 7 dollars a month is nothing. 7 dollars a month for a year equates to like a day and a half work at minimum wage. Thats a day and a half of your life for an entire year. (3 days for 15 dollars) At such a low cost, there is NO POINT in lowering the cost any further.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
I think there becomes a line that has to be drawn by the company though when something stops working or isn't as effective as before. What if they can't utilize the big numbers to draw in the intended effect? I mean could this be the downfall of at least pure P2P models or can a few dollars (in price difference) per month at least salvage some of it?
Regarding Axehilt's post, I firmly believe its price-fixing despite it being at a fixed price. I guess my own definition of price fixing has to usually involve a product that is considered a NECESSITY. Price fixing video game sub fees just seems like far less of a scandal lol. Joking aside, I still firmly believe that a lower price will bring in more people than a higher price, no matter the margins. I think the thing no one really knows is to what degree. I also have a hard time envisioning many options for P2P games as stated in your post in why maybe these companies have to "stay the course".
Regarding higher or lower prices, I just used "larger" differences to try and exaggerate an example but I don't see why companies haven't even tried the gradual increases of one dollar especially if a company perceives its own product as "higher quality" than the average game, like why not try $16. I can't see that entirely crippling a game's launch if the original intention or assumed intention was $15.
Prices generally fluctuate much more gradually but usually when prices are mentioned its with something a little more concrete like tangible goods, but I wonder how far we can push the theory into services like MMO subscriptions.
But there is a point in lowering the price and that's in light of competition with other companies reaching for the same market(s). If small differences in price doesn't matter, companies and stores wouldn't be trying to give away 10% discounts by participating in various card programs etc. or lowering the price of their paper towels by $0.50. If these subtle differences didn't matter commercially, then it merely wouldn't happen, but it does in this day and age and I don't see how this effect would be any different with something like video games aside from the subjective "quality" aspect which also exists in tangible things as well (name brand products vs generic products).
I suspect that the problem is a lack of data. There's just no extensive data on subscriber numbers at varous sub price points. Nobody can tell if a 10% price drop will draw in 10% more players. And most people in this thread are not talking about 10%, they are in 30% and 50% territory.
I'm also convinced that $15 is not the deciding factor in subbing or not subbing. If you truly can't afford $15 a month for unlimited access to a certain entertainment product, then you are in all likelihood not part of the target market, so your protest is irrelevant.
I'd say the most important factor in the sub decision is whether you perceive the price to be worth it. What will it be ? A sub to MMO X or an extra pizza/taco or two ? Judging by the outpourings of venom on these forums since the P2P trifecta (FFXIV, Wildstar, ESO), a great many people really don't want to give up that extra pizza every month
Well there's no doubt there's inefficiency in the system. There's really no example of a product or company made with 100% efficiency, so some money is wasted. No doubt.
But there's no magical way to simply *POOF* make game-making more efficient.
Most pressure from gamers' feedback is actually to make things less efficient by trying new ideas. They suggest features which are explicitly less efficient to produce or less efficient at causing players to have fun.
The problem is that many of these ideas also have some of the highest fun potential because they're different. But because they're different, R&D is needed. Iteration is needed. Iteration means time. Time means money, which means less efficient development.
The most efficient game designs are boring as hell. They're safe, known quantities which don't bring anything new to the table to excite players. But you can produce them rapidly and efficiently.
So while we want to be as efficient as possible in iterating on new game features, inevitably it costs more money than churning out a known quantity, which means there's going to be some inefficiency.
As for lowering the price? There isn't really a "best for everyone" price. The nature of economics says that suppliers always want to optimize for revenue and consumers always want the lowest price possible, so the price "sweet spot" for both groups doesn't ever intersect. Furthermore, a lower price may actually be bad for customers in the long run if it means their favorite companies offer prices which generate razor-thing profit margins, and they end up going out of business at the first sign of an economic downturn (20 studios we lost in 2012, and another list that goes back a bit further.) As a gamer it's in my own best interest to spend enough on Game A that I enjoy from a company so that they generate enough profit to create Game B (which I'm also likely to enjoy.) (Again, I'm a developer myself so take that however you want, but it's honestly the way I look at it; and the way I look at other entertainment products as well.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well we can't say that without data either. We don't know how many new payers are added or lost as you decrease or increase the subscription price.
It seems quite likely $15 isn't the precise local maxima, and that a price somewhat different than that would generate more total revenue. Or maybe EQ1 did their homework extensively when they set that $15 precedent, and the market still bears it out today. Again, we just don't have access to that data to make an informed guess either way.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Market studies are done to find the highest price you can charge before the majority of potential buyers are no longer interested. It's the same reason very few cash shop items don't go below $5, even when its clear the item is worth less than $5.
It's basically a barrier of mass monetary flow. The extra people that you would get charging $3 doesn't outpace the extra money from the people that are willing to spend $5.
For MMOs that price is between $13-15.
As to why nobody tries to raise the price? Market expectations. People are use to paying $15 and they'd rail against paying more. Ultimately this doesn't hurt MMO developers, because the maintenance cost of maintaining a MMO has actually went down the last decade due to things like virtualization, datacenter competition, better software automation, bandwidth availability, a surplus of qualified IT professionals, etc. Add into that stagnate wages over the past decade, and they're actually making more on your $15 now than they were 10 years ago.
An example of going against market expectations is what happened to Netflix when they rose their prices. It's generally a bad idea.
It's mostly about barriers to entry... more so than anything else (from my perspective). Personally, $15 per month is a little steep for me, no matter how good the experience.
That said, the game I enjoy charges $10 per month with discounts for extended periods ($90 for 1 year, $160 for 2), and has since 2004. I will likely spend over one grand on this game in my lifetime.
I'm also not sure if the OP is suggesting that specific games adjust prices based on changing market conditions or not.... From my perspective this may not work well due to customer expectations and loyalty. At most, a game may be able to introduce new payment options as we've seen with WoW and others.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
I hope they go up to at least 20 dollars a month, keeps the majority of the rift raft out of the game. I only like sub games.
I find it funny how people can say 15 a month is a little steep when you pay just as much to see a movie in theaters just once. For how much entertainment value you get out of mmos typically(lasting months or even longer if you find 'the one') 15 a month is a steal in my eyes.
Also that game wouldn't happen to be Dark Ages or Nexus TK would it? Kru/Nexon games.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
I hope any game you enjoy does go up to 20 dollars a month so you can cry about how they were forced to go free to play after a mass exodus happened over night.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
I wouldn't play a free to play game so I would quit once they make the transition as I have in the past. /shrug
It has fluctuated. Tons if fact. All the way to "free". What we see now is a resurgence in the sub market. FFIVX, ESO, and WildStar are planning sub launches. The last major sub launch was SWTOR and it flopped.
I might point out to you, your selection of data is narrow. If you used a broader spectrum of data, you would see that while sub prices have stagnated, other entertainment prices have risen. In the 10+ years I have been plunking down $15 a month for game subs, a local movie ticket has gone from $7.50 to $12.50. This data shows that game subs have bucked the inflation trend.
No offence intended, but, you should finish the textbook before you attempt to dissect the market XD.
Whole reason I was stuck with Runescape growing up, well that and my homes computer was fairly crappy, but my mom always thought and to this day still thinks someone would have to be high to pay $15 a month for a game they've already payed for.
Also my mom was a gamer mom so was not even the typical "Video games are stupid" mom.
console gamers =/= mmorpg gamers. completely different species so i wouldn't expect a console gamer to understand the concept of playing a sub to an mmo. i mean its not like their console games that they bought constantly get updated with new content and have extreme server costs to maintain.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
What does server cost and new content has to do with a sub. There are plenty games with those things don't charge a sub.
D3, anyone? B2P games and F2P games?
And what is a MMORPG gamer? I play console games, pc games, iOS games, and some MMORPG. Do i count? I certainly do not play MMORPG exclusive, nor i care about the label.
But i am curious about your definition. Lots of people play WOW, and also Splinter Cell, CoD, Halo on their consoles too. What are they? Hybrids?
D3 makes money from RMAH sales and also its a b2p mmo. It's a lobby game. You really think D3 has anywhere near the server costs as WoW or Tera or Aion or Wushu or any actual open world persistent mmo?
Even GW2 makes its money from cash shop purchases.
There is no such game that is B2P that doesn't have a secondary continuous form of income outside of the box sales. That's just grounds for closure very quickly if they didn't.
What I said was console gamers are not the same as mmorpg gamers. I wouldn't expect them to understand why people pay subscriptions toward a game they already purchased because in their mind, they bought the game, its theirs, why do they ahve to keep paying money to play it? I then explained why such a thought process was flawed.
But yes, you have pretty much nailed it. People who generally play mmorpgs and console gamers can be thought of as hybrids, but i think an analogy of All MMORPG gamers are console gamers, but not all console gamers are MMORPG gamers. would make better sense than to say 'hybrids' because that typically is true for everyone. I know a great deal of people who only play console games, but never have and never will play an mmo(or tried but hated thus never will again). Yet how many mmorpg players do you know who will say the same about console games?
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Why is it flawed? Let's assume, for a moment, that indeed MMORPGs have higher server cost (which you claim, but i don't see any evidence that it is so, except your opinion. Show me a report of server costs between D3, Battlefield 3, and WOW, and i will believe you).
Why i should i pay for when the cost is higher? I pay for fun, for value. I don't pay for something just because it is expensive to make.
TOR has very high development cost. I am not going to pay more for that game just because it is expensive.
Now you may prefer to pay more because you want to compensate devs just because you feel sorry for them. But don't assume everyone needs to have the same preference.
It is no flaw to decide i don't want to pay for something no matter how much it costs. It is just a preference that .. that something is not worth it.